Smoke rises after airstrikes targeting Islamic State militants near the Khazer checkpoint outside of the city of Irbil in northern Iraq, on Friday. The Iraqi Air Force has been carrying out strikes against the militants, and for the first time Friday, U.S. war planes also directly targeted the group, which controls large areas of Syria and Iraq. The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama’s new military strategy in Iraq amounts to trying to contain — not destroy — the Islamic militant group that now controls much of the country’s northern region. That leaves open the questions of how deeply the U.S. will be drawn into the sectarian conflict, and whether airstrikes alone can stop the militants’ momentum.

Obama insists he will not send American ground troops back to Iraq after having withdrawn them in 2011, fulfilling a campaign promise. Still, even the limited airstrikes against the vicious insurgency show the president’s conviction the U.S. military cannot remain dormant after having fought an eight-year war that temporarily neutralized Sunni extremists but failed to produce lasting peace.

U.S. military jets dropped food and water to imperiled refugees in northwestern Iraq and launched several airstrikes Friday on isolated targets, including two mortar positions and a vehicle convoy in northeastern Iraq, near the country’s Kurdish capital of Irbil. Additional airdrops and targeted strikes were thought likely. The next move may be up to the Islamic State group, the al-Qaida inspired extremists who have chewed up Iraqi opposition so far.

About three dozen U.S. military trainers and a U.S. consulate are in Irbil, where Kurdish forces are fighting off a militant advance. That’s no easy defense.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said of the Islamic State group, “They are well organized and they’re armed, and they are a significant threat to the stability of Iraq.”

Will there be further airstrikes? State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said the Islamic State group must at least halt its advance on Irbil to prevent further strikes.

Iraq has been pleading for months, if not years, for additional U.S. military help to combat the extremists, but the U.S. pulled out of Iraq in part because it couldn’t reach an agreement with the government on legal immunity for U.S. troops. Harf said the Obama administration acted now out of concern that “there was a crisis that had the potential to get much worse.”

U.S. officials said the Islamic State extremists in recent days have shown military skill, including using artillery in sophisticated synchronization with other heavy weapons. Their force had overwhelmed not only Iraqi government troops but also the outgunned Kurdish militia.

The Obama administration steadfastly insists the airstrikes and humanitarian airdrops are not the start of an open-ended campaign to defeat the militants.

The president’s critics say his approach is too narrow.

“A policy of containment will not work,” Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement. They are among the chief critics of Obama’s foreign policy in general, beginning with his decision to stick to the 2011 timetable set by President George W. Bush for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

The Islamic militants are “inherently expansionist and must be stopped,” the senators said. “The longer we wait to act, the worse this threat will become.”

Beyond airstrikes, the administration has been asked to provide arms directly to the Kurdish forces defending Irbil. Until now, the U.S. has been willing to do that only through the central government in Baghdad, which has long feuded with the semi-autonomous Kurdish government in Iraq’s north.

Michael Barbero, a retired Army general who ran the U.S. training mission in Iraq from 2009-11, said Baghdad never delivered about $200 million worth of American weapons designated for the Kurds. Pentagon officials maintain they can provide arms only to the Iraqi government, although Harf said Friday the Kurdish forces play a critical role in the crisis.

“We understand their need for additional arms and equipment and are working to provide those as well so they are reinforced,” she said.

In announcing his decision to intervene militarily, Obama stated plainly he would not allow the U.S. “to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq.”

But Obama’s limited use of air power leads some to ask whether that approach will make a lasting difference.

*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides